DOCTOR’S SECRET

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10993, 31 August 1921, Page 6

DOCTOR’S SECRET

EVIDENCE AT COURT. JUDGE ORDERS ITTO BE TOLD. ••AXihester doCtaf- caßpnded long and earnestly in Hie Divorce Chart for the preservation of the .professional privilege of secrecy in regard to a patient’s illness, bat Mr Justice Horndge held that;he was .underTegal obligation to give evidence. The [discussion arose during a husband’s petition for divorce, in which the petitioner’s counsel, Mr Grazebrook, desired to call Dr John Elliott, of Chester, who, it was said, had treated respondent at a clinic. Dr Elliott,' on entering the box, said be claimed the “privilege doctor and patient,” and asked the judge to exempt him from giving evidence. Mr Justice Horridge said there was no privilege for a doctor in a court of-law,-and ordered him to answer the questions. • Dr Elliott said that he and other medical men who formed this particular clinic undertook the duties on the distinct understanding that professional secrecy as to what happened there would be observed and upheld by the Ministry of Health. His Lordship: I am sorry, but the Ministry has no power affecting the jurisdiction of these courts. Dr Elliott said he wished to point out that he was placed in a painful position. - His Lordship: Can you show me any statute which will protect you? Witness replied that there was a regulation- under the Public Health Acts. ' H His Lordships Yes. That may be a very good regulation between yourselves, -but it has nothing to do with these courts. Witness said that patients treated at the clinic were not referred to by name, but only identified by a number, and the register was kept under lock and He desired to be protected against having to violate principles which the medical profession was observing. Some medical men, he proceeded, undertook these duties simply in the interests of the public, regarding it as a public duty to try to a terrible disease, and little anticipated that they would be placed in such a painful position an he stood in. He, therefore, again asked leave to protest against having to stand up publicly and violate what was one of the earliest and most sacred principles of the medical profession, and one which the profession held most dear. His Lordship: I do not see any painful position about it at all. You are bound to observe the regulations not to disclose voluntarily the information that you 'obtain, but eo far as giving information which you are bound to give in assisting the administration of justice is concerned, it is your duty to give it, and it is not a painful position at all. Witness: We do not undertake not to disclose voluntarily, but not to disclose at all. HLb Lordship; Then you have no power to do so. It is not an unfair obligation for doctors to assist in the administration of justice. You must give evidence. The doctor then gave evidence as to what the respondent suffered from.